It's because really what they are doing is using chemistry to split a cell. Adamala is a chemist.
They have just bolted an unsynchronized physicochemical process onto the boundary of the cell. It doesn't coordinate with anything to do with the cell. Both cells don't get half of the dna. They built stochastic chemical scissors that only work if you make the cell less cell-like.
18,600 engineering years sounds impressive to someone because it is the bulk of a career for 1,000 engineers. But it is less than two years for 10,000 engineers. The depth of understanding really hinges on which version is closer to reality.
Meta Horizons World probably puts up similar numbers if you sum up the hardware/software tech stack to get this number.
It has very human aspects, such as the beginning. So people switch off. And then it has long stretches where it is bulked up by claude and opus-4.8’s obsession with “honestly true,” “narrower” claims, how concepts “rhyme” etc.
I guess it is also possible this person has internalized claude, but I think their writing pattern is: short pieces: fully human voice; long pieces: ai-supported.
As to my personal views, I am sad to have lost the emdash and the antithesis, among other things, to the llm-cliche dustbin.
The one they claim is in their voice [1] has zero of the tells I am referring to. You can compare and contrast it with your fully/generated reference 0 (although that is fable and I have little experience reading its writing it seems to use many similar comventions) and the title piece and see what I mean.
Parts of it seem not to be, but the bulk of it is. Here is a particularly clear example of opus-4.8-speak.
> Now, I want to be careful here, because this is the part where it would be very easy to start waving my arms around. Every single one of these has many causes. Suburbs and cars. Television, and then phones. A long list of things that have nothing to do with me at all. I am not going to claim I have found the one secret root of loneliness, and you should be suspicious of anyone who does. We cannot cleanly untangle these. That is just honestly true.
It is mostly written by llm. “narrower” and “I want to put a fence here” hedging, etc. This is very 4.8. Maybe llm that has been somewhat massaged by a human to sound less ai.
Founders are often synonymous with their businesses. In the case of celebrities the relevant exploitation is carried out by others in the value chain, they are just the lure/source.
They are all about science and research. What they don’t want is for scientific discoveries to be publicly available, because then it is harder to leverage them for absurd profit margins.
I have found that on long-running tasks, many of the communication (and other) invariants get dropped at seemingly arbitrary points along the way. It probably just stopped doing the log.
As I see the perspective of a typical vp champion/customer/middle manager at a large org that buys their services: if my vendor increases their prices that is usually an indication they have something of value and things are going well. It is a negotiation, buy or build business choices, not embarrassing. If my vendor doesn’t raise, and then they cease to exist, or become so weak that a competitor of mine can buy them out, then I am actually in an embarrassing place.
My main job in this conception is to not be in an embarrassing place, and grow my budgets and headcount. Prices rising can even help with this, perversely.
They are because they can, because it serves as social proof, which convinces their customers that they are doing something of deeper value. Then in reality they will use it to develop channels preparing to use their customers (and the data customers trust them with) as the product in the future.
I agree with that as a premise, but again it seems to
me you are selectively jumping way into the end game. There were early networks that did not standardize, and these nonstandard networks had advantages, and some of those advantages were sacrificed in market-driven standardization.
Intelligence must have interfaces, and those can be standardized. Businesses will try to remain provider agnostic, which will also drive standardization via standard sales and marketing methods.
Separately, we are doing our best to standardize performances on benchmarks.
I don’t disagree that right now transport of standardized mobile data vs emulation of human intelligence is qualitatively different, but perhaps primarily because it is early in development, and our vantage point this time is relatively from within the network, instead of outside it.
I agree with much of what you’ve written but think you are missing the correct alignment of the mobile data timeline — mobile data had standards because it was forced to. It was forced to early because it was not a fundamental innovation, telecom itself was the fundamental innovation, mobile was a constraint relaxation. Intelligence might be forced to have standards as well, we will see what form the regulations take when prices reflect costs and healthy margins and become existential threats for many businesses.
They have just bolted an unsynchronized physicochemical process onto the boundary of the cell. It doesn't coordinate with anything to do with the cell. Both cells don't get half of the dna. They built stochastic chemical scissors that only work if you make the cell less cell-like.